Did god give us free will?

I think having free will isn't the same as having unlimited special abilities. One definition of free will would be the ability, with some degree of independence from external forces, to choose between different possible courses of action that are within our current physical capacity. Even a mostly paralyzed bed-bound person with a healthy brain would still have free will.

Sure. But sometimes even when we choose a possible course of action, say to hold an object, we instead drop that object. Was that free will? Couldn't be right? Because our will was to hold the object and yet we didn't.

Also what about a mostly brain dead person, do they still have free will? Schizophrenics? Why don't they just will themselves to stop seeing and hearing things? Just so many different things that make me think free will is an illusion.

We have will, not free will OR omnipotent will. So yes we drop things were were trying to hold. The will is trying to hold it, the not omnipotent is dropping it. A psychotic also has will, but much less control of it. Again, it's not omnipotent so we can't just say "Why don't they just will it away?" Same reason as your will can't help you jump over the moon if you try.

It's just red herring after red herring after red herring on the "free" will debate. What the hell would "free" even mean there? Because if it means uninfluenced or all-powerful, it's totally bogus. We are left with will (not free or omnipotent).

psychotic is just observation by a qualified person who says that person is psychotic.
Society generally doesn't want a madman running around on the streets.

Someone who is paranoid can will it away by following scripture in the book of matthew. Meaning don't fear what man will do to you.
following that the person no longer has fears about people killing them like tom dwan currently has. they will just sit down watch tv in a hosptial,

not post on twitter, take their pills which the doctor gives to them and or get a court order which takes time to stop the authorities from giving them pills if a judge decides to rule in mental patients favour.

a christian shouldn't take a person to court BTW.

Depends on what you mean by prove. If you mean demonstrate it through empirical or verifiable physical evidence then no I can't. Though the very thing up for discussion is whether empirical or verifiable physical things are all that exist. Of course there are other ideas as a solution for the mind body problem but my version is just as respectable as the next. The mind body problem is far from solved or conceptually clear.

As for the best argument for free will I'd point to our first hand experience of deliberation, something obviously real. Deliberation seems like an incoherent term given determinism, just a trick or an illusion.

Mr. A and Mrs. B are debating the question: "Do people have free will?"

If we do have free will, then both Mr. A and Mrs. B freely chose their respective positions.

If we do not have free will, then neither Mr. A nor Mrs. B freely chose their respective positions.

Whether we have free will or not, we certainly seem to have free will.

Barring a virtually air-tight argument for determinism, , the presumption should be that we do have free will.

More generally: Assume our intuition is correct unless there is a compelling argument that our intuition is not correct.

You reach the conclusion that we should trust our intuition based on many factors out of your control — the culture into which you were born, the upbringing given to you by your parents, various and mostly unknown configurations of neuron networks in your brain, etc. That argues to the contrary - for determinism rather than free will. The key word in your argument is “seems”. Yes it SEEMS like we have free will. It also seems like the table in front of me is completely solid, and not over 99% empty space. It seems like the water J just drank is a continuous fluid and not a stream of many sextillions of discrete particles.

Things are not always as they seem, though. Basically, if so had to sum up the entire history of scientific advance in one sentence, that would be it. Most of our true advances in science were really just demonstrating that the true nature of things is not what the things seem to be. It seems like the sky is a dome over the earth and that the sun, moon and stars move across that done every day. It seems like the earth is the center of the universe and everything else revolves around the earth. It seems like particles and waves are distinct things and that nothing can have characteristics of both. It seems like if someone moving toward you very rapidly shines a light at you that the speed of that light would be higher than it would if someone standing still shone a light at you. Of course, all of those things that seem true (and many others) are really false. Why would it be expected then that our intuition finally got one right when it comes to free will? You are simply begging the question and assuming the answer that you want to be true.

I certainly agree that our intuition is often proven to be mistaken.

But until our intuition is demonstrated to be suspect, we function as if our intuition matches reality. (Given there is no compelling reason to believe otherwise.)

It was once totally rational to believe the Earth was flat until there was compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is totally rational to believe in free will until there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

No problem with intuition being wrong sometimes. Logic and reason has been mistaken a few quadrillion times too.

We have volitional consciousness, in that we are able to make choices (with those choices certainly being influenced by many factors). Therefore we have will -- not free will -- and putting the word "free" in there, again, just puts the whole discussion on a red herring level.

Maslow and its forms has the hierarchy of needs, that dictate everything, IMO. I think the "free will" question is a too generic question.